The premier issue of Scientific American Mind caught
my attention with the headline Explaining the Kindness of Strangers,
Why We Help' because I have waited for a long time to see the topic
discussed in terms of science. "The Samaritan Paradox"
by Ernst Fehr and Suzann-Viola Renninger did not break any new ground.
When I saw the word altruism' I knew it was time to join the debate.
Following is my letter to the editor of Scientific American Mind,
Volume 14, Number 5 which was on sale December 2004. If you are interested
in the topic of evolution selecting for human kindness, I will be adding
more essays and letters at salmonriver.com in the coming months. Nancy
Sherer

December 5, 2004
Editor, Scientific American Mind
sciam.com

Dear Editor,

Altruism as discussed in The Samaritan Paradox' muddies
the scientific discussion about the origin of benevolence in Homo sapiens.
Good' exists only as an artifact of human genetics. From patrons
to patriots, we have ample evidence that Homo sapiens' benevolent behavior
is a dominance display as well as an effective way to secure progeny,
but still the scientific community continues to bandy about altruism'
speculations as though goodness had a supernatural existence. It doesn't.
Food sharing, self-sacrifice, and all the various types of human benevolence
are as much a product of Homo sapiens genetics as honey is the product
of bees.

Neither is it difficult to imagine how this genetic trait fit into Homo
sapiens' evolution. Jane Goodall's description of meat-sharing among
chimpanzees points to one possible starting place for benevolent behavior.
When male chimps were observed sharing meat with estrus females, their
motivation was obvious. They had sexual access to a fertile female at
least until a dominant male noticed her availability.

What would happen if a prehistoric hominid found this to be a significant
reproductive advantage? While the prehistoric chest-beating hominids
vied for the best position on the rocks, our ancestor offered meat to
females who weren't quite fertile yet. Or perhaps he offered food to
immature hominids to attract attention of their mother. Either way,
he was the first in line as estrus approached.

Not that our first mothers weren't part of the equation. Unlike other
hominids, human females hide estrus. Females who were sexually available
regardless of their fertility cycle had a handy, safe source of extra
meat. The meat-sharing male would be surrounded by potential mothers'
for his offspring, while the females competed for his attention with
secondary sex characteristics such as large breasts or a slender waist
that could be used to advertise fertility. While non-meat-sharing males
would be oblivious to the fertile female, the meat-sharer would gather
a harem. The squabbling males would never even notice they were getting
cut out of the gene pool.

As generations progress, males who could be trusted around infants
would increase their odds at being first in line for reproductive possibilities.
And finally, if a male provided food and protection for the infant another
human characteristic could evolve - a mother with numerous, helpless
offspring. While chimps produce one offspring every five years, a Homo
sapiens female, surrounded by her beneficent species can produce a baby
every two to three years. Clearly, a gene for beneficence puts us in
the evolutionary category of fit for survival. Even if our benevolence
evolved in a different way, we know it did evolve in some way because
our behavior proves it.

Our ancestors continued in an ever widening spiral of benevolence resulting
in successful reproduction. We even define a lack of benevolence, such
as greed or unnecessary cruelty as aberrant behavior. Homo sapiens'
benevolence extends beyond food-sharing, but it all follows the same
logic. Protecting the weak, feeding the hungry, and sacrificing oneself
for the common good are dominance displays. After all, people don't
sign their sons up for the Boy Scouts to teach them submissive behavior.
To do a good deed everyday is the mark of a superior male. No one calls
a fireman a fool for running into a burning building. We call him a
hero. There is an obvious connection between our reverence for a benevolent
male and that male's status.

Although people are fond of talking about the top dog, the lion's share
or pecking order, human dominance hierarchies are not based on abuse
or physical threats. Unlike lions, wolves, chickens or chimps, when
an unrelated male enters the territory of a human male he is fed, sheltered,
and entertained. These aren't learned behaviors or social standards,
and neither are they expressions of affection. Just as the dominance
of wolves can be estimated by the way they elevate their tales, so can
the dominance of men be estimated by who pays for lunch.

Like dominance displays of other species, human benevolence plays a
vital role in survival and reproduction. Leave behind the nonsense discussions
of altruism because there is no Samaritan paradox. We are brutal because
we are animals. We are benevolent because evolution favored it.

Sincerely,

Nancy Sherer

Consider books by Naomi Sherer: Sagesong, The Open Door, Beyond
Namche, Wildly in the Rockies,